MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041138177 · doi:10.7202/031027ar

The Spread of Rural Industry in Lower Canada, 1831-1851

2006· article· en· W2041138177 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Serge Courville, Jean‐Claude Robert, Normand Séguin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Historical Association · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHistorical Economic and Social Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCensusUrbanizationGeographyDistribution (mathematics)Settlement (finance)Economic geographyEconomyPopulationRegional scienceEconomic growthEconomicsDemographySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As a contribution to a larger project which seeks to explore the contours of the socio-economy of Lower Canada in the nineteenth century, this paper utilises the 1831 and 1851 census data to define the extent, nature, and distribution of an essential component in the rural economy — industry — in the St. Lawrence axis during the first half of the nineteenth century. The aggregate census data suggest that a degree of numerical stagnation, or even deindustrialisation, occurred between 1831 and 1851, localised in the Montréal district. An analysis of the individual census schedules for 1851 indicates that no such deindustrialisation actually took place. What is revealed is a picture of great complexity in terms of type and distribution of industries over time. The evolution of the emerging rural industrial landscape is linked to population growth, expanding land settlement, and urbanisation. What emerges is a picture of an integrated economy based on a relatively well-developed structural exchange system.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.651

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.163
Teacher spread0.153 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Historical AssociationSame topicHistorical Economic and Social StudiesFrench-language works237,207